Media coverage of Islamic terrorism continues to misrepresent the stark reality. This week, three
items caught HonestReporting's attention:
-
1-
ROOT CAUSE: ISRAEL?
A high-profile
international conference on combating terrorism, with Kofi Annan and other
world leaders in attendance, is currently underway in
Madrid. It takes place one year after terrorists killed 191 people in an attack on that city's
commuter rail lines.
One
of the topics addressed in Madrid yesterday (Mar. 9) was the source of Islamic
terrorism. A number of
opinions were expressed, including that of a former
Mossad chief, but
the
Associated Press summary chose to amplify only one opinion ― that Israeli policy
is the 'root cause' of the entire international terrorist scourge. The article
begins:
Resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is key to any hope of curtailing
global outbursts of violence, panelists at a summit on democracy, terrorism and
security said Wednesday. That is at the heart of Arabs' feelings of
discrimination by foreign political, social and economic policies.
AP continues with a heavily editorialized statement from Palestinian Saeb Erakat ― note where the
Erakat quote ends and the reporter picks up:
"I have a 17-year-old boy, Ali," said Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat. "I
don't want him to become a suicide bomber" as a desperate way to achieve
legitimate dreams including an independent state, viable homeland with Jerusalem
as capital and right of refugees to reclaim lost land. "Help me. Help me put
hope in his mind."
HonestReporting asks: (1) Why did AP choose to report only the 'blame
Israel for world terror' opinion from this session at the conference?
and (2) Why did the reporter supplement Erakat's quote with
what appears to be personal opinion on the 'legitimate dreams' of
Palestinians?
Comments to AP:
feedback@ap.org
-2-
'BODY COUNTS' IGNORE REALITY OF TERROR
Arnold Roth, whose daughter Malki was killed by a suicide bomber in the Sbarros pizzeria in 2001, was
interviewed for
a
recent Associated Press article on Palestinian and Israeli child
deaths during the conflict. In the article, AP compared the two death
counts in a manner that prompted Roth to respond to the AP
journalist:
'It upsets me very much to see the agonizing story of child murders largely reduced to an AP statistical analysis. Counting bodies
― whether it's factually correct or incorrect ― ignores the central reality of terrorism. The terrorists want as many bodies as possible, and they don't make any effort to hide it. Counter-terrorism warfare causes innocents to lose their lives. This is awful
― but it's not the same as the cold-blooded, deliberate viciousness that motivates people like the murderers of my daughter.'
To view Roth's entire response to the AP reporter, see HR's blog,
BackSpin.
3-
OKRENT: OMITTING T-WORD IS A POLITICAL ACT
New
York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent has finally delivered a long-promised statement on the use/non-use of the term 'terrorism' to describe Palestinian violence.
Okrent couches the issue among other controversial matters that exasperate editors aiming to achieve neutral language, but concludes by agreeing with former Times Jerusalem bureau chief James Bennet that the
'T-word' should appear more often in
news reports:
I think in some instances The Times's earnest effort to avoid bias can desiccate language and dilute meaning.
In a January memo to the foreign desk, former Jerusalem bureau chief James Bennet addressed the paper's gingerly use of the word "terrorism":
"The calculated bombing of students in a university cafeteria, or of families
gathered in an ice cream parlor, cries out to be called what it is," he wrote.
"I wanted to avoid the political meaning that comes with 'terrorism,' but I
couldn't pretend that the word had no usage at all in plain English." Bennet
came to believe that "not to use the term began to seem like a political act
in itself."
I agree. While some Israelis and their supporters assert that any
Palestinian holding a gun is a terrorist, there can be neither factual nor
moral certainty that he is. But if the same man fires into a crowd of
civilians, he has committed an act of terror, and he is a terrorist... Given
the word's history as a virtual battle flag over the past several years, it
would be tendentious for The Times to require constant use of it, as some of
the paper's critics are insisting. But there's something uncomfortably
fearful, and inevitably self-defeating, about struggling so hard to avoid it.
(emphasis added)
Read Okrent's piece here, and see HonestReporting's special report on this topic: 'Calling Terror by Its Name'
Thank you for your ongoing involvement in the battle 
against media bias.
HonestReporting
